By

George Christopher Dertadian and Vicki Sentas

The decriminalization of drug possession in varied forms is gaining some traction around the world. Yet prospects for people with lived and living experience of drug use to influence the direction of drug law and policy reform remains bound by stigma and exclusion. This study considers the aspirations for decriminalization of people who inject drugs through 20 semi-structured qualitative interviews with the clients of the Sydney injecting centre. What does decriminalization mean for those most criminalised by drug law and policy? The study found that participants’ views of what is possible for decriminalization are mediated by the same structures and experiences of criminalization, incarceration and exclusion that has disrupted their lives. Participants anticipate the need to mobilise incremental and partial changes associated with de facto models, including fines, increased police discretion (and therefore power) and treatment

orders. At the same time, participants collective imaginary also exceeds the limits of a police-controlled depenalization. We document people’s claims on a future drug policy that speaks to a world without criminal drug offences, punitive controls and the exclusion of people who use drugs from the policy table

International Journal of Drug Policy Volume 135, January 2025, 104657

MAY CONTAIN MARKUP

BY W. J. WILLIAMS

MORIARTY'S POLICE LAW, now in its 19th edition, continues to serve as a comprehensive guide for police officers navigating the complex legal landscape of their profession. With a meticulous arrangement of laws and regulations, this authoritative volume provides officers with the knowledge and insights they need to uphold law and order effectively. From the basics of criminal procedure to the latest updates in policing standards, this essential resource remains a trusted companion for law enforcement professionals seeking clarity and guidance in their daily duties.

LONDON. BUTTERWORTHS. 1968. 728p.

By Michael J. Z. Mannheimer

Police are required to obey the law. While that seems obvious, courts have lost track of that requirement due to misinterpreting the two constitutional provisions governing police conduct: the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Fourth Amendment forbids ""unreasonable searches and seizures"" and is the source of most constitutional constraints on policing. Although that provision technically applies only to the federal government, the Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in the wake of the Civil War, has been deemed to apply the Fourth Amendment to the States. This book contends that the courts’ misinterpretation of these provisions has led them to hold federal and state law enforcement mistakenly to the same constitutional standards. The Fourth Amendment was originally understood as a federalism, or “states’ rights,” provision that, in effect, required federal agents to adhere to state law when searching or seizing. Thus, applying the same constraint to the States is impossible. Instead, the Fourteenth Amendment was originally understood in part as requiring that state officials (1) adhere to state law, (2) not discriminate, and (3) not be granted excessive discretion by legislators. These principles should guide judicial review of modern policing. Instead, constitutional constraints on policing are too strict and too forgiving at the same time. In this book, Michael J.Z. Mannheimer calls for a reimagination of what modern policing could look like based on the original understandings of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.

Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 2023. 431p.